본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
kiep logo

Contents

Citation

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to find the enlightenment that the experience of state system transition in Eastern Europe offers to the economic integration of Korea and DPRK if leave DPRK as an independent economic area to seek its economic transition in a certain period, when the political structure breaks down. The transition policies of economic system of Eastern Europe states could be roughly divided into four types, the policies of liberalization, the policies of stabilization of the macro economy, the policies of privatization and financial reform. This thesis is trying to analyze how to use these types of polices in DPRK. According to the situation in Eastern Europe, compared to the fact that whether the speed of the transition of economic system is radical or gradual, the result of the transition of economic system depends on the condition of the preliminary stage of the transition of economic system and how consistently and ardently the states which plan to change their system promote all kinds of reform policy. The way to minimize the side-effect which the Eastern Europe suffered after the transition is to minimize the cost of the unity of Korea as much as possible. Therefore, the following policies coordination must be carried out. First, do not launch the stabilization policy mainly by restraining the aggregate demand as the Eastern Europe states. Appropriate policy adjustment should follow that. Second, the fruit of the economic reform should be distributed to the class or group which has got the acquired right. Third, appropriate income policy is needed in order to allay the controversy between economic growth and stabilization policy.

JEL classification: F15, P2, P3,

Keywords

Transition Economies, Eastern Europe, Korea Economic Integration

Language

Korean

References

  1. Kim, G.-P. 1994. “Privatization of State-Owned Enterprises in Eastern European Countries: Privatization Policy and Laws,” Research Report 94-01. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean)
  2. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 1994. Handbook on the Czech Republic. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean)
  3. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 1994. Handbook on Poland. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean)
  4. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 1995. Handbook on Hungary. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean)
  5. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 1996. Handbook on Bulgaria. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean)
  6. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 1996. Handbook on Rumania. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean)
  7. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 1997. Handbook on Slovak Republic. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean)
  8. Park, J. H. 1997. “System Transformation of Transitional Economy,” In Korea Association for Comparative Economics eds., Comparative Economic Systems. Seoul: Pakyongsa. pp. 98-135. (In Korean)
  9. Cheong, G.-Y. 1993. “Reforms in Eastern Europe and Its Implication for the Korean Economy,”. Policy Analyses 93-38. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (In Korean)
  10. The Bank of Korea. 1992. “The Status and Tasks of Economic Reform in Eastern Europe,” Research Report 92-12. The Bank of Korea. (In Korean)
  11. The Bank of Korea. 1996. “The Status and Tasks of Privatization in Major Transition Economies,” Research Report 96-16. The Bank of Korea. (In Korean)
  12. The Bank of Korea. 1997. “Experience in Reforming Economy of Eastern European Countries,” Research Report 97-12. The Bank of Korea. (In Korean)
  13. Han, J.-C. 1998. “Resolving Bad Loans in Central and Eastern Europe: The Cases of Hungary, Poland, and Czech Republic,” Journal of East Asian Economic Integration, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 219-255. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean) CrossRef
  14. Hong, Y. S. 1992. “Pattern and Performance of Economic Reform in Eastern Europe,” Policy Analyses 92-19. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (In Korean)
  15. Calvo, Guillermo A. and Jacob A. Frenkel. 1991. From Centrally-Planned to Market Economies: The Road from CPE to PCPE. IMF WP 91-17. (February)
  16. EBRD. 1995~1998. Transition Report.
  17. Gerard Caprio, Jr., and Ross Levine. 1994. "Reforming Finance in Transition Socialist Economie," World Bank Research Observer, vol. 9, issue 1, January, pp. 1-24. CrossRef
  18. Harvlik, P. 1996. "Stabilization and Prospects for Sustainable Growth in Transition Economics," In Economics of Transition: Structural Adjustments and Growth Prospects in Eastern Europe. UK: Edward Elgar.
  19. Fischer, S. 1993. "The role of macroeconomic factors in growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 32, issue. 3, December. pp. 485-512 CrossRef
  20. IMF. 1991. Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions.
  21. Kornai, J. 1992. The Socialist System : The Political Economy of Communism. New York: Oxford University Press.
  22. Milanovic, B. 1989. Liberalization and Enterpreneuship: Dynamics of Reform in Socialism and Capitalism. New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc.
  23. Milanovic, B. 1992. "Privatization Options and Procedures" In The Transition from Socialism in Eastern Europe. edited by Arye L. Hillman and Branko Millanovic. World Bank.
  24. Podkaminer, L. 1999. "Ten Lessons from a decade of transition." WIIW Monthly Report, 1999, 4. Vienna.
  25. Rybczynski, T. M. 1991. "The Sequencing of Reform," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 26-34. CrossRef
  26. Sachs, J. 1995. "Reforms in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union in the Light of the East Asian Experience". Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, vol. 9, issue. 4, December, pp. 454-485. CrossRef
  27. WIIW. 1998~1999. Monthly Report.